254

Journalism 14(2)

The literature on financial/economic journalism

Much research on the current financial crisis has been focused around the question of why almost all financial journalists failed to warn of the impending crash (e.g. Fahy et al., 2010; Schechter, 2009; Tambini, 2010). These studies explained the failure by reprising various production processes consistently highlighted in other studies and theoretical models of how the news media operate (e.g. Glasgow Media Group, 1976, 1980, 1982; Herman and Chomsky, 1988; Philo and Berry, 2004, 2011). These include the role of elite sourcing, financial constraints, political pressure, advertising, deficiencies in journalistic training and resources and the impact of public relations. For instance, Fahy et al.s (2010) study of the role of Irish journalists in the countrys banking crisis pointed to the key role of elite financial sector sourcing:
They [journalists] viewed them [bankers and property developers] as friends and allies and essentially became advocates for them. Their approach was justified editorially because many developers and bankers limited access to such an extent that it became seen to be better to write soft stories about them than to lose access. Extremely soft stories would be run to gain access too. (2010: 13)

Research on financial journalism prior to the 2008 crisis has also highlighted the dominance of elite financial sources. Daviss (2000) study of how the financial press covered the hostile takeover of Forte by Granada in 19956 found that only 2.8 per cent of citations came from non-financial elite sources. The result of this imbalance was that the takeover was largely framed around the consequences for large institutional shareholders whilst the negative consequences of the deal for Fortes employees, customers and the taxpayer were absent. Davis argues that financial news operates within a closed elite discourse network in which the corporate sector combining PR with its advertising and news source advantages has captured business and financial news (2000: 286). The issue of whether financial journalism is inherently pro-free market is also addressed in Doyles (2006) study of journalists working in the specialist financial press and business pages of the national press. This research found that whilst there may be some scope for criticism of business in areas such as corporate governance, consumer protection and environmental issues, structural constraints make it difficult for journalists to offer systemic critiques of the way the stock market or economy, as a whole, functions. The restricted range of opinion in financial journalism has also been highlighted in content studies. Durhams (2007) analysis of the Financial Times reporting of the 1997 Asian financial crisis found that elite financial sources dominated coverage and that the issue was framed primarily around the concerns of institutional investors whilst the concerns of the Thai government and its people were largely absent. In a similar vein, Kantolas (2006) analysis of the Financial Times coverage of 32 national elections between 2000 and 2005 found that the paper consistently backed parties which supported free market policies such as privatisation of state assets, tax cuts and shrinking the size of the state. Research on television news has reported similar findings. The Glasgow Media Group (1976, 1980, 1982) examined the reporting of debates surrounding the problems of the British economy, which in the 1970s was widely seen to be falling behind its international

Berry

255

competitors. The trade unions pointed to poor organisation in management and low levels of investment in plant and machinery while right-wing commentators, including the Conservative Party, blamed unions and strike action. The research found that the explanation that strikes were the key problem was routinely featured in broadcast news headlines while explanations focusing on management failings and low investment levels were largely absent. Key reasons for the dominance of certain perspectives, they argued, were assumptions about hierarchies of access and who is seen as a credible source. In practice this means that those people deemed important, such as senior civil servants or government ministers, were the people journalists routinely turned to when they wanted to know something about the economy. In responding to this charge, Richard Francis, the Director of News and Current Affairs at the BBC, only confirmed its validity:
the BBCs journalists do indeed find it natural to ask an important person a senior civil servant or government minister, for instance for they are the people whose decisions largely determine how things will be run in our democracy. (New Statesman, 20 April 1979, cited in Glasgow Media Group, 1982: 138)

Later research which examined the reporting of the British economy during the late 1980s (Philo, 1995) provided a preview of the 2008 crash. During this period broadcast news heavily featured and sometimes endorsed the perspective of City sources who were extolling the strength and buoyancy of the UK economy, which appeared to be growing strongly. An alternative perspective, which was largely absent, stressed that much of the growth was due to a credit boom and that this masked major structural weaknesses in the economy (notably the decline of British manufacturing in the 1980s). This view pointed out that the credit boom was drawing in record quantities of imports and threatening a balance of payments crisis. This crisis duly arrived in mid-1988 and the government was forced to repeatedly raise interest rates to protect the pound. The result was that the economy moved into its second recession in a decade. More recently, Tracy (2012) examined how major US broadcasters and newspapers explained the reasons behind the Greek financial crisis. Tracy found that the US media framed the crisis in terms of the alleged flaws of Greece and the Greek people. Alternative accounts which pointed to issues such as the role of Goldman Sachs in hiding the size of Greeces public debts prior to entry into the Eurozone, or the role of credit rating agencies and short selling in exacerbating the crisis were largely absent. Reflecting much of the research in the field, Tracy pointed to the key role of sourcing in framing news agendas. Tambini (2010) takes a step back to explore the role financial journalists should fulfil in democratic societies. The classical concept of journalism sees the profession as having a key watchdog function in scrutinising and holding to account state or corporate power (e.g. Keane, 1991). Interviews with financial journalists, however, suggest journalists held a range of opinions about their ethical responsibilities and broader governance role and that only a minority of journalists saw their work as having broader public responsibilities (2010: 172). While some journalists did see themselves as having a watchdog role, this was only in terms of reporting on corporate failings, wrongdoing or scandal, rather than appealing to a broader public interest through educating the general public about the functioning of finance, or warning about systemic risks to the wider economy.

256

Journalism 14(2)

One area of the media that sees itself as operating squarely within this framework is public service broadcasting. The BBCs Director General Mark Thompson has argued that the Corporation should be unflinching in holding power to account (BBC, 2011a). This research assesses to what degree the BBC fulfils this role in its coverage of the banking crisis. It will also assess whether the Corporation fulfils other key objectives such as reflecting all significant strands of opinion and the avoidance of editorialising (BBC, 2007: 6). Since the issue of elite sourcing has been identified as highly significant in all studies in this area, patterns of source access will be a central focus of this research.

Sample and methods

The sample consists of six weeks of coverage of the banking crisis on BBC Radio 4s flagship news and current affairs show, the Today programme. The sample begins on 15 September 2008, the day Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, and ends on 31 October 2008, three weeks after the conclusion of the British banking rescue. There are three reasons for selecting the Today programme. Firstly, it attracts an audience of approximately seven million listeners per day making it the most popular news programme in broadcasting (BBC, 2011b). Secondly, its audience has a heavy concentration of professionals and opinion formers, and, thirdly, it is widely seen as significant in setting news and political agendas in other parts of the media. In 2005, MPs voted it the most influential programme in broadcasting (BBC, 2005). The audio broadcasts were downloaded from the BBC website and only segments which covered the banking crisis and issues connected to the crisis were selected. These were then subject to a series of analyses. 1 The entire six weeks of broadcasts were subject to a source analysis to ascertain the prominence and absence of different classes of sources. Anyone who was interviewed or had a statement featured was coded. 2 The two-week period (6 October 2008 17 October 2008) around the British banking bailout was subject to a second source analysis. In this analysis only weekdays were included. On weekdays the Today programme reaches a much wider audience and has a greater power to set agendas in other parts of the media. On this occasion only sources commenting a) directly on the British banking crisis and b) in extended interview situations were coded. This analysis did not include brief vox pops or single statements from individuals. The purpose of this analysis was to identify the main voices used to comment on the banking bailout in extended interview situations. This grants the interviewee a certain level of status and prestige and it also allows the speaker to develop and rebut arguments over many turns. 3 This two-week period was also subject to a thematic analysis. This is a method which has been used by the Glasgow Media Group in areas such as industrial news, food scares and risk (Philo, 1999), international development (Philo, 1999) and war or conflict reporting (Glasgow Media Group, 1985; Philo and Berry, 2004, 2011). The method is based on the assumption that in any contested area there will be competing ways of explaining events or issues. These explanations

Berry

257 are linked to particular interests which seek to explain the world in ways that justify their own position. The purpose of a thematic analysis is to map which explanations are featured in news accounts and which are absent. In this research the central focus was on two issues the range of debate around the British governments bank bailout package and reforms of the financial sector.

Results Patterns of source access

During the six-week study period, the Today programme featured a total of 233 source appearances. These sources were granted varying levels of time to express their views. The analysis presented in Figure 1 doesnt differentiate but instead presents a broad picture of the relative prominence of different source categories. Coding here was not always straightforward since many individuals could be categorised in different groups. For instance, Adair Turner has been an investment banker, Director General of the CBI, an academic economist who lecturers part time at the LSE and a regulator at the Financial Services Authority (FSA). In order to maintain consistency, sources were categorised by their most prominent or long-term group affiliation. Since many of the individuals classified in Figure 1 as politicians, regulators, academics and business representatives also have close links with the City and broader financial services community, the prominence of City voices is very conservatively estimated. As can be seen from Figure 1, representatives from the financial services community are the largest group of sources accessed (35.1% of all source appearances) followed by politicians (32%). Since the main three British political parties during this period were all committed to free markets and light touch regulation, there is a narrowness in the range of opinion available to listeners. This is magnified by the presence of other groups such as business lobbyists, neoclassical economists and journalists from the financial press who all tend to share a

Figure 1. All sources 15 September 2008 to 31 October 2008.

Note: Total N = 233.

258

Journalism 14(2)

similar laissez-faire outlook on how the economy should be managed. Organised labour is almost completely absent from the Today programme with only a single appearance from one union leader (0.4%). One of the most notable aspects of the financial crash was the fact that relatively few economists, bankers or politicians raised the alarm about the dangers building up in the global banking system. Alan Greenspan, the influential former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, argued that Everybody missed it academia, the Federal Reserve, all regulators (New York Times, 25 June 2010). While this observation reflects the public domain in the media mainstream, a number of economists, journalists and commentators had been warning of the dangers for years prior to the crash. Bezemer (2009) identified 12 analysts who had made clear and repeated warnings in the years leading up to the crash, 10 of whom were still alive when the crash occurred. Of the 10 surviving analysts only the US economist Dean Baker was featured on the Today programme. Other analysts who could be added to this list include Gillian Tett (two appearances), Larry Elliot (one appearance), and Ann Pettifor (no appearances). Despite the absence of those who had predicted the crisis, BBC journalists themselves explicitly linked authority with the ability to have foreseen the crisis.
Journalist: The IMF speaks with renewed authority because it came closer to predicting this financial crisis than any other body. (BBC Today programme, 10 October 2008)

Figure 2 presents data on the range of interview-based sources who were consulted by the Today programme during the two-week period around the British banking bailout. These were the experts who were given extended periods to discuss the core issues around the banking bailouts and what might be done to reform the sector. City voices dominated core coverage of the bank nationalisations, accounting for 27 of the 38 interviews. There were five interviews involving politicians two each for the Chancellor and shadow Chancellor and one for the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg. Four academics were interviewed, two economists with close links to the banking/ regulatory system (Charles Goodhart and Richard Portes), the Neo-Conservative, Francis

Figure 2. Sources commenting during bank bailout fortnight.

Note: Total N = 38.

Berry

259

Fukayama, and Bill Clintons former Labour Secretary Robert Reich. The final two interviewees were the Financial Times Gillian Tett and Digby Jones, the former Director General of the CBI. As can be seen, domination by City voices is even more pronounced during this period and there is little space given to commentators who are outside the financial services sector.

Thematic analysis: Bailout or nationalisation?

This section examines the debate around the British bank rescue plan which was announced on 8 October 2008. The British governments response to the systemic insolvency of the UK banking sector was to provide 37 billion in capital in exchange for ordinary and preference shares in several banks on top of an extra 200 billion of loans and 250 billion of loan guarantees extended to the sector. The stated aim was to stabilise the banking system and keep credit flowing to the rest of the economy. In Table 1, data is presented on who commented on the bank bailout and whether overall they were supportive or critical of the intervention.
Table 1. Comment on the UK bank bailout. Source Sir George Cox Source category City Supportive/ Critical/Mixed Supportive Comments Good, Decisive, Bold move, should help to shore up confidence in banks, they are taking a stake in businesses which fundamentally are good businesses and at a very low price one should imagine and in the long term this could be quite a good move from the taxpayers point of view in terms of getting a good return on it Should stop run on banks Bold plan, Good plan, Government right to fix the banks first. Says government can expect to make return on investment Banking crisis is essentially dealt with, line drawn in sand as of Monday [bailout] Bold package that ought to work but for it to work will require a rethink by those in the markets. Government has done pretty much all it can A very interesting and probably positive step by the government, amount of money that we are going to have to pull in from the taxpayer, from borrowing overseas is vast and that will make a recession deeper and it will make it longer, Really not fair on the taxpayer who deserves a big return for the enormous risks theyre taking Expect the bailout measures to have a major impact, very substantial (Continued)

Terry Smith Hugh Osmond Ian Morley Howard Davies John Moulton

City City City City

Supportive Supportive Supportive Supportive

City

Mixed

Angela Knight

City

Supportive

260
Table 1. (Continued) Source Norman Lamont Jim ONeill Neil Mackinnon Source category Politician City City Supportive/ Critical/Mixed Supportive Supportive Supportive Comments

Journalism 14(2)

Liam Halligan

City

Critical

Tim Congdon George Magnus Paul Killick Patrick Minford John Redwood

City City City Free market economist Politician

Supportive Supportive Supportive Supportive Critical

Bold package, Will buy time for banks to clear up balance sheets. Substantial package, Quite comprehensive A very good package and a very timely package, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are to be applauded for putting together this plan at very short notice and given the very severe crisis that weve faced across all markets Will do nothing to unthaw the interbank market. That will only happen when banks are forced by law if necessary to fess up the subprime losses. Thats still hasnt happened, nothing the government has said will make that happen. Increased money creation and borrowing for banks is pure inflation injected into the system A good package that was needed The plan is to be welcomed Authorities need to be congratulated Well thought out, A good plan and has a good chance of getting the credit markets going again Offering too much money upfront to three banks from the taxpayer is a bad idea. I dont think its putting enough discipline on those banks to do what they need to do for themselves. Its also undermining confidence in them and its something the taxpayer cant afford We supported the proposal to rescue the banks as a necessary last resort but also suggests there needs to be more regulation, more balanced economy

George Osborne

Politician

Mixed

City voices were dominant and overwhelmingly supportive of the bailout. There was little critical commentary from City sources and no source put forward an alternative plan to the bailout. However, other options were available to the government. One alternative was to either temporarily or permanently nationalise the part of the banking system that was insolvent. Temporary nationalisation of the banking system was the approach that Sweden took in the early 1990s when it faced a systemic solvency crisis in its banking sector following financial deregulation and the collapse of subsequent asset price bubbles. This approach would involve substantial losses to share and bond holders

Berry

261

but would avoid the situation of zombie2 banks that the Japanese found themselves in during the 1990s following the collapse of an unprecedented property bubble. The Financial Times commentator Willem Buiter (2009) argued that, without full nationalisation, banks given government capital injections would seek to hoard liquidity leading to sharp falls in lending to the wider economy. This, he suggested, was because banks overriding prerogative would be to rebuild their balance sheets and speedily pay back public money in order to get the government out of its hair. The Daily Telegraph reported that the US economist Joseph Stiglitz also saw temporary nationalisation as being a possible option:3
Professor Stiglitz, the former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told The Daily Telegraph that Britain should let the banks default on their vast foreign operations and start afresh with new set of healthy banks. The UK has been hit hard because the banks took on enormously large liabilities in foreign currencies. Should the British taxpayers have to lower their standard of living for 20 years to pay off mistakes that benefited a small elite? he said. There is an argument for letting the banks go bust. It may cause turmoil but it will be a cheaper way to deal with this in the end. The British Parliament never offered a blanket guarantee for all liabilities and derivative positions of these banks, he said. Mr Stiglitz said the Government should underwrite all deposits to protect the UKs domestic credit system and safeguard money markets that lubricate lending. It should use the skeletons of the old banks to build a healthier structure. (Daily Telegraph, 2 February 2009)

The case for nationalisation didnt appear in our two-week sample. While nationalisation was mentioned three times during this period, it was quickly dismissed:
Howard Davies (Former Chairman of FSA and non-executive Director of Morgan Stanley): I have to say that I dont think that full nationalisation should be necessary or indeed would be ideal because once you fully nationalise a bank, you take it out of the market, you take it out of its pressure to be competitive I think you will then find it very hard to sell. But taking a 10% stake a 20% stake in a bank as a signal to the market that the Government stands behind it may well mean that you could get out of that stake when markets return to normal as we hope they must do one day. So I think that rather than full nationalisation is a better option. (Today programme, 7 October 2008) Norman Lamont (Former Chancellor of the Exchequer and director of Hedge Fund RAB Capital): I think we should have regulation but not over-regulation. What we dont want and I wouldnt have wanted would have been for the government to run the banks that would have been a terrible error. But I think there are a lot of things like remuneration structures that need to be looked at. (Today programme, 8 October 2008) Journalist: George Cox, do you think there would have been a case for going even further and just saying look banks failed you are dependent on huge amounts of liquidity support from the taxpayer you are dependent on huge amounts of implicit government guarantees and if those werent lurking around in the background there would clearly be a run. We will withdraw all support unless you want to walk into our arms and we will take you over completely? George Cox (Former non-executive director of Bradford and Bingley): No that would have been the wrong move. That would have been a huge mouthful for the government to bite off. Its already bitten off a big mouthful as I said earlier and I think to have taken over the whole

262

Journalism 14(2)

lot would have been unnecessary. I mean you are then taking full responsibility for recovery. Now as it is much of it lies with the banks themselves and I am sure thats right. (Today programme, 13 October 2008)

These extracts show that journalists were aware that nationalisation was an alternative to the UK bank bailout. This can also be seen in the following exchange: Journalist 1: Do you think this was as good a deal as the taxpayer could have got? Journalist 2:  Well as good a deal as the taxpayer could have got would have been to simply expropriate the assets and to have taken the whole thing you know for nothing and, I guess, there could have been an analysis done that these were basically businesses that werent viable without huge government support and in particular these guarantees for interbank lending. You know, I guess, there would have been a route for them to do that. I think the government in the end just took the view that full scale nationalisation of that sort would have done such damage to confidence in the British banking system that it was a step too far which is why they decided to maintain them as going concerns. (Today programme, 13 October 2008, my italics) There is, however, a reluctance to admit that nationalisation was a serious alternative to the bailout. The journalist indicated that that the government has concluded that it would be a step too far then the option isnt explored further. This can also be seen in the way in which journalists address questions to key politicians. During an interview, Alastair Darling is robustly questioned by a journalist who repeatedly raised the problem that under the terms of the bailout the government cant actually compel the banks to lend to each other or to the wider economy: Journalist:  Yes but what the taxpayer is being told this morning is that these vast amounts of money are buying, we hope, confidence but not influence. We cannot force the banks to do anything. Alastair Darling: Well if we put money into the system then yes we can. Journalist: What buying these preference shares? Alastair Darling: Yes hold on. Journalist: But these are not even voting shares? Alastair Darling:  Hold on. In return for doing this we want to ensure that we reach an agreement with those individual companies in relation to amongst other things a commitment to extend support to small businesses and homebuyers. Journalist: So you havent got that undertaking yet? Alastair Darling:  Well Ive just announced the scheme today so the next stage is to enter into agreements with the banks. Journalist:  So its conditional upon that agreement is it? In other words you could come back here next week and say the schemes off because they wouldnt give us these promises? (Today programme, 8 October 2008)

Berry

263

This inability to actually compel the bank to provide credit to the wider economy without taking them under direct state control was one of the key arguments put forward in favour of nationalisation. During the credit crunch states such as the UK and US, which had AAA credit scores from the rating agencies, were unlike most banks, able to borrow large sums at very low rates of interest. As Joseph Stigltz put it: The US government can borrow at 1pc so why cant it lend directly to poor people for mortgages at 4pc? (Daily Telegraph, 2 February 2009). However, during interviews the option of nationalisation was not put to the Chancellor. It was outside the terms of debate. There were also occasions when journalists went further and directly endorsed free market views on the bailout and nationalisation. The tendency for financial journalists to endorse free market perspectives was noted by Doyle (2006) in her interviews with journalists, though it was clear that some reporters were reflexive enough to realise that this was not something that they should be doing. But during the reporting of the crisis there were occasions when reporters did this:
What we are into now is Im afraid state controlled banking of the sort we didnt think wed see since Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979. I mean I think one of the things thats been announced today thats not been given enough play is these banks are being forced to lend to homeowners and small businesses. I mean that is the sort of thing we saw you know in Eastern Europe [laughs]. We have not seen control of credit like that for decades. (Today programme, 13 October 2008, my italics)

On his official BBC blog one journalist commented on the paradox of the bailouts in that the need for the banks to speedily pay back the vast sums of public money they have been lent means that they are limited in their ability to extend credit to the wider economy. However, the journalist argued:
if we dont demand our money back, wed be formalising that theres been a semi-permanent nationalisation of the entire banking system. And that would massively encroach on the ability of our banks to operate as independent commercial entities. There would be massive political pressure on them to become quasi-social utilities, providing loans at the behest of ministers and officials rather than on the basis of commercial criteria. So heres what may turn out to be the choice: less lending for years or public ownership of the banks for the foreseeable future. Its not an easy choice, is it? (Peston, 2008)

In another segment during a discussion of the American bailouts a journalist commented:

Henry Paulson has come out now and is telling them how to spend it [the bailout funds]. So hes come out and said you cant hoard this money you have to start lending immediately. So thats where this thing about government and politicians comes in. How much meddling are they [politicians] going to do? (Today programme, 15 October 2008, my italics)

In this segment the journalist described the politicians as meddling in the operations of the banks. Meddling is widely seen to refer to a situation in which someone is intervening in an unjustified or illegitimate manner in someone elses business. The BBC is under

264

Journalism 14(2)

mandate not to take positions on questions of political or economic controversy but on some occasions this happens.4 The assumption built into some reporting and the position taken by all sources interviewed during the crisis was that nationalisation would be bad for banking and bad for the wider economy. However, this position is contested. In terms of financial stability, the three banks rated as safest on the planet KFW (Germany), Caisse des Depots et Consignations (France) and Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten (Netherlands) are all either wholly or partially state owned (Global Finance Magazine, 2011). The notion that stateowned banks are detrimental to the wider economy is also contested. For instance, Andrianova et al.s (2009) study of a large number of countries between 1995 and 2007 found that a large state presence in banking was actually associated with higher rates of economic growth:5
When it comes to banks that are in the public sector, democratic accountability of politicians is more likely to discourage them from engaging in speculation. In such banks, top managers are more likely to be compelled to focus on the more mundane job of financing real businesses and economic growth. (Andrianova et al., 2010)

The purpose of this analysis is not to argue for one model of banking over another. There are arguments for and against extensive state involvement in banking. However, what is clear is that listeners were offered a very limited range of debate in which the case for either short- or long-term state ownership is missing.

Reforms to the banking/financial system

The scale and repercussions of the banking crash led to demands for major reforms to prevent another crisis. Overall there was relatively little space given over to ideas for reform. Approximately 3 percent of coverage (five minutes and seven seconds out of a total of five hours, 28 minutes and four seconds of total coverage) was given over to discussion of reforms. Table 2 quantifies the lines of news text that were given over to arguments for and against particular proposals. This included assessments of changes that were likely to happen and explicit calls for the sector to change (or not change) in certain ways. The most discussed reform involved setting up a new international Bretton Woods style financial architecture with an enlarged role for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a surveillance body and international policeman. Significant space was also given over to discussion of restricting bankers bonuses because they were seen to fuel risk taking. The heavy concentration of financial sector sources meant that arguments stressing the dangers of over-regulation and calls for the retention of bankers were also featured. Structural reforms such as splitting retail and investment banking or the need for stronger pro-competition regulation received little attention. However, reliance on such a narrow selection of financial sources excludes a broad range of opinion from outside this sector which has been advocating more far-reaching reforms. These include: the banning of complex financial instruments (e.g. Eichengreen, 2008; Stiglitz, 2008); the closure of tax havens where some of the riskiest trading

Berry
Table 2. Reforms or changes to the banking sector. Reform/Change New international rules/Financial architecture Restrict/reform bonuses More, proper, sensible regulation of banks Dont sack bankers; they have the knowledge and experience to prevent a reoccurrence Sack bankers who caused crisis Dont over-regulate, dont kick bankers Restrict risky trading/business in banks Set up independent commission into banking Bonuses not the problem Split retail and investment banking Stronger pro-competition regulation Total

265

Lines of news text 43 37 11 9 9 9 8 4 3 2 1 139

occurred (e.g. Chang, 2008; Murphy, 2008; Stiglitz, 2008); increased regulation of the shadow banking system (e.g. Chang, 2008); the introduction of a financial transactions tax to curb market volatility (e.g. Chang, 2008); increased regulation of ratings agencies or their replacement with a publicly accountable not-for-profit body. (e.g. Chang, 2008); and restrictions on the revolving door which sees politicians and regulators move onto the boards of major financial institutions (e.g. Andrianova et al., 2009; Beattie, 2008; Foley, 2008). What is also missing is a broader series of structural critiques about the functioning of the finance sector and its role in Britains economy. For instance, Will Hutton (1996) has argued that the City has negative impacts on the wider economy and needs to be downsized. Hutton argues that the City, by drawing in foreign investment, forces up sterling which severely damages manufacturing. He also argues that the City spurns long-term productive investment in favour of short-term financial speculation and that this unbalances the economy and creates asset bubbles and instability:
The City of London is now too big and too risky for a country our size. It is not just that bailing it out has cost 850bn, as the National Audit Office reported, and that the recession it imposed has led to the biggest ever increase in peacetime public borrowing. For years it has crowded out exporters and manufacturers. Money has flowed into the City forcing the pound up to crazy levels, and making it hard for exporters to compete, while at the same time generating credit flows that have made property, construction and financial services the routes to quick profits It should be no surprise that half the growth between 1997 and 2007 came from finance, construction and property. Over the same period, manufacturing shrank from 20% to 12% of our national output. (Observer, 6 December 2009)

Whilst this perspective was absent, the opposite view that the sector was a major benefit to the country that shouldnt be regulated more heavily appeared repeatedly in coverage:

266

Journalism 14(2)

Digby Jones (President of the CBI): One thing I hope we really do not get is a backlash against bankers because Britains financial services community is enormously important, its about 9% of GDP and employs hundreds of thousands of people. I dont want to wake up in five years time and found we have overregulated, weve dis-incentivised innovation and Shanghai, Dubai and Mumbai think its Christmas Day. (Today programme, 6 October 2008) Ian Morley (Corazon Capital): I think the UK economy has in recent years been significantly based on the growth of financial services. Hedge funds in the UK are the second largest location in the world after the United States and if they get driven offshore itll be a significant loss certainly to the financial economy and as the financial economy is a significant part of the UK economy today the knock on effect to the general economy as well. (Today programme, 16 October 2008)

There is also a series of critiques that argue that the financial crisis is closely connected to deregulation and trade/capital market liberalisation (e.g. Glyn, 2007; Keen; 2011; Lansley, 2012; Pettifor 2006; Turner, 2008). Economists such as Keen (2011) and Pettifor (2006) have argued that the financial crisis, particularly in the UK and America, is at root a private debt crisis and the key problem is that the banks have been allowed to create vast quantities of private and corporate debt primarily to fuel asset speculation. These economists argue that the deleveraging of this debt will lead to a decade or more of economic stagnation. To counter this they propose wide-ranging financial reforms such as the re-introduction of capital controls, bank nationalisations, debt jubilees and severe restrictions on banks abilities to create credit. Other commentators such as Turner (2008) and Lansley (2012), whilst recognising the key role of the explosion in private debt, see this as a consequence of the impact of globalisation and widening income and wealth inequalities. Stagnating wages for the majority, they argue, have meant that the UK has faced a shortfall in aggregate demand that has been deliberately papered over via the creation of credit/asset bubbles.6 They suggest that reforms to the banking sector need to be supplemented with moves to narrow income inequalities via progressive changes to the tax system and increasing the bargaining power of organised labour. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all the ideas or proposals for preventing a repeat of the 2008 crisis. There are other issues that could have been included such as the introduction of land taxes to reduce property speculation (Harrison, 2005). However, these accounts represent a spectrum of opinion on how to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis which were completely absent from coverage on the Today programme.

Conclusion
This research has demonstrated that, in reporting the banking crisis, the parameters of debate on the Today programme are set by a narrow group of City sources, regulators, IMF spokespersons and front bench politicians. As Elliot and Atkinson (2009) have noted, these groups share an almost identical outlook on the finance industry and how it might be reformed. The central findings are therefore very much in line with previous research which has highlighted the dominance of elite financial sources in news reports (e.g. Davis, 2000; Fahy et al., 2010; Glasgow Media Group, 1976, 1980, 1982; Philo, 1995; Tracy, 2012). Why does the Today programme rely on such a narrow range of

Berry

267

financial sector sources in its coverage? Previous research and statements from senior BBC editors suggest two factors are important (Glasgow Media Group, 1976, 1980, 1982). First, elite financial sector sources are viewed as the main repositories of expert knowledge in what is a complex area. Secondly, senior politicians, regulators and representatives from the major financial institutions are seen as the most important decision makers. The Today programmes claim to provide authoritative news thus rests on its ability to access insider accounts from the major players in the industry. However, to limit access to such a narrow range of sources raises key issues for public broadcasters. One problem is the requirement for balance. There is a broad spectrum of opinion which is critical of the financial services industry but is completely absent from coverage. On the day that the banks came within hours of collapse, discussion of the bank bailout during one news segment was conducted between Sir George Cox, described by a BBC journalist as someone with a liberal, free-market economic background, Institute of Directors and from perhaps the more right end of British politics, and Patrick Minford who was introduced as one of Mrs Thatchers chief economist supporters (Today programme, 13 October 2008). As is shown here this narrowness of opinion was common. A second issue is the problem of vested interests. City sources are treated as impartial experts. However, they are partisan actors who have a stake in the maintenance of the status quo and the prevention of reform. As a Guardian editorial put it: leaving the bankers to design the reforms would be like allowing tigers to design their own cages (28 January 2009). By treating City voices as impartial experts rather than as representatives of a sectional interest, the BBC doesnt balance their appearances with other stakeholders who have different perspectives. This means that City voices are given almost monopoly status to define the issues and how they might be resolved. The consequence of this is that far-reaching reforms are either completely absent or appear briefly only to be instantly downgraded. This can be seen in the lack of critical debate over the governments bank rescue plans. The consensus amongst the main political parties and major financial institutions was that full nationalisation of Britains insolvent banks was off the agenda. This was the consensus on the Today programme with no source or journalist willing to explore the option in detail. However, some economists and commentators did see full nationalisation as a preferred option. It is also the case that a significant section of public opinion also favoured this course. A poll by Yougov (2008) on 10 October 2008 asked Should the Government have gone further and nationalised the banks?; 54 per cent replied no, 23 per cent said yes and 23 per cent didnt know. The lack of debate around bank nationalisation highlights the question of what role public service broadcasting should play in matters of political and economic controversy. Is its role to hold the ring between the shades of opinion at Westminster or should it critically scrutinise the actions of governments and corporations by featuring a wide spectrum of opinion? On this occasion, journalists concluded that since the government (and the other main political parties) had decided that nationalisation wasnt a policy choice they would pursue then it didnt need to be examined. However, this approach is difficult to reconcile with the BBCs commitment to hold power to account and to represent all significant strands of opinion. It is also difficult to see how the Corporation can fulfil this aspiration in relation to the operation of Britains powerful financial sector when it draws so much of its commentary and opinion from within the industry.

268

Journalism 14(2)

The BBCs output is not monolithic and it occasionally features systemic critiques on the role and position of the financial sector in the broader UK economy. However, such accounts tend to appear relatively rarely and/or at the margins of coverage. For instance, Hardtalk has interviewed the Australian heterodox economist Steve Keen, but this interview was broadcast on BBC News 24, which has a relatively limited audience, at a time when very few viewers would have been watching (12:30 a.m., 25 November 2012). Similarly Newnight has on occasion featured economists such as Ann Pettifor (16 May 2012) and Mariana Mazzucato (11 July 2012) who have argued for major reforms to the finance industry and a role for the state in banking. However, such sources are not able to secure the routine access to the mass audience bulletins on BBC radio and television, which, as this study shows, are available to leading City sources and are crucial in influencing the formation of public knowledge and attitudes. The consequence of limiting the range of opinion in this way is that listeners are denied the information necessary to make informed political decisions. Without an awareness of the range of policy choices, citizens are preventing from engaging in a full debate about how the sector might be reformed. Public service broadcasting has a key role in the formation of public knowledge and attitudes but, as this research demonstrates, if it is to fulfil its mandate to provide a broad spectrum of opinion, there is a need to open up the parameters of economic debate in its most influential news programmes. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Professor Greg Philo and Professor Justin Lewis for comments on draft copies of this article.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
1. The US Embassy cables released by Wikileaks revealed that seven months before the crisis Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, had met with senior US officials and warned that the crisis was no longer related to liquidity but to the systemic solvency of the UK banking sector (The Guardian, 13 December 2010). King stated that the key issue was that the banks were holding large quantities of mortgage backed securities for which there was no market and this meant that their balance sheets had major holes and needed to be recapitalised. 2. Zombie banks are institutions which are weighed down by bad debts and therefore unable to provide credit to the wider economy. This sharp curtailment in the credit available to businesses and households can lead, as in the Japanese case, to a period of prolonged recession or stagnation. 3. For other examples of calls to nationalise the banking system see Ken Livingstone Stopping the rot (The Guardian, 11 October 2008); John McDonnell Reckless with our money (The Guardian, 8 October 2008); Steve Richards Bite the bullet and nationalise the banks (The Independent, 20 January 2009); Philip Stevens Shoot the bankers, nationalise the banks (Financial Times, 19 January 2009).

Berry

269

4. BBC reporters have also endorsed controversial positions in their report of the European sovereign debt crisis. Commenting on Italys financial problem, a journalist remarked that The austerity bill that was passed yesterday is a pale imitation of what is needed. It must go wider it must go much, much deeper and it must start immediately because if it doesnt then the chaos that we saw in the past week will return and that has repercussions not just for Italy but the entire Eurozone (BBC Early Evening News, 13 November 2011). 5. For a discussion of state banking in the BRIC countries, see Mutually assured existence: Public and private banks have reached a modus vivendi (Economist, 13 May 2010) or Von Mettenheim (2010). 6. Eddie George, the former Governor of the Bank of England, has admitted that the Bank deliberately increased consumption via an increase in personal debt in order to avert a recession in 2000 (The Independent, 21 March 2007).

References
Andrianova S, Demetriades P and Shortland A (2009) Is Government Ownership of Banks Really Harmful to Growth? University of Leicester Discussion Paper in Economics 09/11. Available at: http://www.le.ac.uk/economics/research/RePEc/lec/leecon/dp09-11.pdf (accessed 3 April 2012). Andrianova S, Demetriades P and Shortland A (2010) There should be no rush to privatise government owned banks. Available at: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4647 (accessed 3 April 2012). BBC (2005) BBC News tops MPs survey, 5 April. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ ukfs/hi/newsid_4440000/newsid_4444700/4444751.stm (accessed 14 April 2012). BBC (2007) Report of the Independent Panel for the BBC Trust on Impartiality of BBC Business Coverage, April. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_ research/impartiality_business/business_impartiality_report.pdf (accessed 7 July 2012). BBC (2011a) The BBC must be a beacon for quality and standards, 12 July. Available at: http:// www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2011/annual_report.html (accessed 4 July 2012). BBC (2011b) RAJAR 2011 Quarter 2: Record figures for Radio 4, 4 August. Available at: http:// www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2011/08_august/04/rajar.shtml (accessed 12 April 2012). Beattie A (2008) Washingtons waning way: How bail-outs poison a free market recipe for the world. Financial Times, 28 September. Bezemer DJ (2009) No One Saw this Coming: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models. MPRA Paper no. 1582. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15892/1/ MPRA_paper_15892.pdf (accessed 1 April 2012). Buiter W (2009) Time to take the banks into full public ownership. Financial Times Blog, 16 January. Available at: http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/01/time-to-take-the-banks-intofull-public-ownership/ (accessed 1 April 2012). Chang HJ (2008) Bretton Woods II with caveats. The Guardian, 22 October. Davis A (2000) Public relations, business news and the reproduction of corporate elite power. Journalism 1(3): 282304. Doyle G (2006) Financial news journalism: A post-Enron analysis of approaches towards economic and financial news production in the UK. Journalism 7(4): 433452. Durham F (2007) Framing the state in globalisation: The Financial Times coverage of the 1997 Thai currency crisis. Critical Studies in Media Communication 24(1): 5776. Eichengreen B (2008) New World pragmatism. The Guardian, 23 October. Elliott L and Atkinson D (2009) The Gods that Failed: How Blind Faith in Markets has Cost us our Future. London: Vintage.

270

Journalism 14(2)

Fahy D, OBrien M and Poti V (2010) From boom to bust: A post-Celtic Tiger analysis of the norms, values and roles of Irish financial journalists. Irish Communications Review 12: 520. Foley S (2008) How Goldman Sachs took over the world. The Independent, 22 July. Glasgow Media Group (1976) Bad News. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Glasgow Media Group (1980) More Bad News. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Glasgow Media Group (1982) Really Bad News. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Glasgow Media Group (1985) War and Peace News. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Global Finance Magazine (2011) Global finance names the worlds 50 safest banks. Available at: http:// www.gfmag.com/tools/best-banks/11341-worlds-50-safest-banks-2011.html#axzz204bi5etG (accessed 1 April 2012). Glyn A (2007) Capitalism Unleashed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrison F (2005) Want to get rid of boom and bust, tax land not incomes. The Guardian, 11 April. Herman E and Chomsky N (1988) Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon. Hutton W (1996) The State Were In. London: Vintage. Kantola A (2006) On the dark side of democracy: The global imaginary of financial journalism. In: Cammaerts B and Carpentier N (eds) Reclaiming the Media: Communication Rights and Democratic Media Roles. Bristol: Intellect. Keane J (1991) The Media and Democracy. London: Polity Press. Keen S (2011) Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor Dethroned. London: Zed Books. Lansley S (2012) The Costs of Inequality. London: Gibson Square Books. Murphy R (2008) Light in the dark corners. The Guardian, 4 October. Peston R (2008) Paradox of bank bailouts, 21 November. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ thereporters/robertpeston/2008/11/paradox_of_bank_bailout.html (accessed 1 June 2012). Pettifor A (2006) The Coming First World Debt Crisis. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. Philo G (1995) Television, politics and the rise of the new right. In: Philo G (ed.) Glasgow Media Group Reader II. London: Routledge. Philo G (1999) Message Received. London: Longman. Philo G and Berry M (2004) Bad News from Israel. London: Pluto. Philo G and Berry M (2011) More Bad News from Israel. London: Pluto. Schechter D (2009) Credit crisis: How did we miss it? British Journalism Review 20(1): 1926. Stiglitz J (2008) A crisis of confidence. The Guardian, 22 October. Tambini D (2010) What are financial journalists for? Journalism Studies 11(2): 158174. Tracy JF (2012) Covering financial terrorism: The Greek debt crisis in the US news media. Journalism Practice 6(4): 513529. Turner G (2008) The Credit Crunch: Housing Bubbles, Globalisation and the Worldwide Economic Crisis. London: Pluto. Von Mettenheim K (2010) Observations on Government Banking and BRICS in the Recent Financial Crisis. Association of BRICS Business School Meeting, XIME Management Institute, 27 November. Available at: http://fgv.academia.edu/kurtvonmettenheim/Talks/32644/ Observations_on_Banking_in_BRIC_Countries (accessed 16 April 2012). Yougov (2008) Survey 910 October. Available at: http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_ uk_import/YG-Archives-pol-stimes-vi-081013.pdf (accessed 7 July 2012).

Author biography
Mike Berry is a lecturer in the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Cardiff. His recent books include More Bad News from Israel (Pluto Press, 2011) and Terrorism, Elections and Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). His research interests include the production and reception of news in areas such as political communication, war and conflict, crime, climate change, banking and taxation.